Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-07 Thread Steve
On 07/11/2011 13:01, Cactus wrote: > The "file is being used by another process" message is because several > builds are running at the same time. I'd guessed that there was a link... though, ideally, the solution files would be written in such a way as to allow non-dependent projects to be buil

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-07 Thread Steve
On 07/11/2011 11:21, Cactus wrote: > I have just installed the Visual Studio Developer Preview 11. > > Note that, in addition to installing Visual Studio 11, the YASM > assembler -- vsyasm.exe -- has to be copied into the directory holding > the VC++ version 11 binaries. I've got a copy of vsyasm.

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-06 Thread Steve
On 06/11/2011 19:31, Cactus wrote: > I think it would be useful to find out why GMP_NAIL_BITS is not being > defined. It appears to be because the section I referenced is not > being included when I think it should be. > > It would be useful to put the ! marks back in but this won't work > because

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-06 Thread Steve
On 06/11/2011 18:29, Cactus wrote: > It looks like the script that creates mpir.h is not working properly. > > Do you have something like the following early in mpir.h? > > #if ! defined (__GMP_WITHIN_CONFIGURE) > #define __GMP_BITS_PER_MP_LIMB 64 > #define GMP_LIMB_BITS

Re: [mpir-devel] Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-06 Thread Steve
On 06/11/2011 16:10, Case Van Horsen wrote: > I've used the Windows 7 SDK to compile MPIR in both 32- and 64-bit > mode. I just used the batch file approach but I believe the SDK will > add a 64-bit compiler to Visual Studio Express. IIRC, the 7.0 SDK > corresponds to VS 2008 and the 7.1 SDK corres

[mpir-devel] Compiling MPIR with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview...

2011-11-06 Thread Steve
In an attempt to verify some code I've written using MPIR and Visual C++ 2010 Express (which only supports generating 32-bit executables) I downloaded Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview - which gives me access to an effective beta of the next version of Visual Studio Ultimate Edition. My motivatio

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Yet another question... (hopefully the last one for a while...)

2011-03-14 Thread Steve
On 11/03/2011 23:01, Bill Hart wrote: > The correct way to get a given limb is with mpz_getlimbn (mpz t op, mp > size t n ). The number of limbs is given by mpz_size (mpz t op ) . > These are both on page 44 of the manual. Of course you need to deal > with the case that the mpz has size 0 separatel

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Yet another question... (hopefully the last one for a while...)

2011-03-11 Thread Steve
On 11/03/2011 13:47, Cactus wrote: > The manual explains mpz_export that gives you such access but it won't > avoid the cost of an array for the results. > > The mpz structure contains an integer (_mp_size) whose absolute value > gives the number of limbs pointed to by the limb pointer (_mp_d). > >

[mpir-devel] Yet another question... (hopefully the last one for a while...)

2011-03-11 Thread Steve
I've large positive mpz_t values, and I need to access them one byte (or one word) at a time. Obviously, I could do this using mpz_div_2exp() and mpz_get_ui() - but this gets me the least significant words first... and I need to access the data most-significant word first. Sure, I could do this

Re: [mpir-devel] Query about safety of calls...

2011-03-10 Thread Steve
On 10/03/2011 14:21, Bill Hart wrote: > On 10 March 2011 13:07, Steve wrote: >> I'm wondering, is it safe to re-use the same structure as both the first >> and second arguments to mpz_...() functions... > Yes, that is always safe, unless it is explicitly documented ot

[mpir-devel] Query about safety of calls...

2011-03-10 Thread Steve
I'm wondering, is it safe to re-use the same structure as both the first and second arguments to mpz_...() functions... For example, is the idiom: void addthenshift(mpz_t &mp,unsigned a,unsigned s) { mpz_add_ui(mp,mp,a); mpz_mul_2exp(mp,mp,s); } always safe? Or, is it necessary to introd

Re: [mpir-devel] Query regarding efficiency of function...

2011-03-09 Thread Steve
On 09/03/2011 17:55, Bill Hart wrote: > There is the C function mpz_sizeinbase. If you do it in base 2 it will > extremely efficiently tell you the bit length. Your algorithm will > actually be O(n^2) time, whereas mpz_sizeinbase for base a power of 2 > is O(1). Many thanks - mpx_sizeinbase() with

[mpir-devel] Query regarding compiler warnings about hpirxx.h in Visual Studio Express 2010

2011-03-09 Thread Steve
I get number of compiler warnings about hpirxx.h in Visual Studio Express 2010 - which surprised me: 1>c:\lib\win32\debug\mpirxx.h(1670): warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning) 1>c:\lib\win32\debug\mpirxx.h(1671): warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value t

[mpir-devel] Query regarding efficiency of function...

2011-03-09 Thread Steve
I need to calculate the 'bit length' of some (very large) arbitrary precision natural numbers. Without any regard for efficiency, I have this prototype: -- unsigned count_bits(mpz_class number) { BOOST_ASSERT(number<0); unsigned count=0; while (number!=0) { number>>=1;